UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations A/C.3/60/SR.33
General Assembly
Sixtieth session
Official Records
Distr.: General
16 November 2005
Original: English
This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member
of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the
Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a
copy of the record.
Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each
Committee.
05-58343 (E)
*0558343*
Third Committee
Summary record of the 33rd meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 2 November 2005, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Ms. Carvalho (Vice-Chairman). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Portugal)
Contents
Agenda item 71: Human rights questions (continued)
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the
effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (continued)
Agenda item 61: Implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social
Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly
(continued)
Agenda item 106: Crime prevention and criminal justice (continued)
Agenda item 107: International drug control (continued)
Agenda item 64: Advancement of women (continued)
Agenda item 71: Human rights questions (continued)*
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the
effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (continued)*
(c) Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives
(continued)*
(e) Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(continued)*
_____________
* Items which the Committee has decided to consider together.

A/C.3/60/SR.33
In the absence of Mr. Butagira (Uganda), Ms. Carvalho
(Portugal), Vice-Chairman, took the Chair.
The meeting was called to order at 2.40 p.m.
Agenda item 71: Human rights questions (continued)
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative
approaches for improving the effective
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (continued)
Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.28: Ad Hoc Committee on a
Comprehensive and Integral International Convention
on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and
Dignity of Persons with Disabilities
1. Ms. Feller (Mexico), introducing the draft
resolution on behalf of the sponsors, said that the
purpose of the draft resolution was to renew the
mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee and establish the
general framework of the continuation of its work. The
Ad Hoc Committee had made important progress in the
past year, having concluded a complete reading of the
draft convention prepared by its Working Group, in a
very positive environment that had been enriched by
the broad participation of civil society. On the basis of
negotiations, the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee
had elaborated a draft text designed to bridge the
differences expressed in relation to individual draft
articles. Her delegation welcomed the timely
presentation of the draft, which would be the basis for
future negotiations.
2. The coming year would be key for the work of
the Ad Hoc Committee, and it was crucial to maintain
the continuity and momentum that had characterized
negotiations thus far. The sponsors therefore believed
that all concerned stakeholders should be invited to
continue to participate actively and constructively in
the Ad Hoc Committee with the aim of concluding a
draft convention and submitting it to the General
Assembly at its sixty-first session (para. 3) and that the
Ad Hoc Committee should hold two sessions in 2006
(para. 4). While the sponsors were conscious that such
a level of engagement would require an important
effort and resources by the stakeholders, they
considered that such an effort would prove more
efficient and give better results in the medium and long
terms. The Ad Hoc Committee must also not forget its
main goal, which was to achieve a high-quality

convention that established the measures needed to
guarantee the full enjoyment of all human rights for all
persons with disabilities and their equal opportunities
in all spheres of life.
3. Given the urgent need to make the necessary
arrangements for the Ad Hoc Committee’s next session
in January, she hoped that the draft resolution would be
adopted without a vote as early as possible. Lastly, she
said that, in the third preambular paragraph, the words
“universality, indivisibility and interdependence”
should be replaced by “universality, indivisibility,
interdependence and interrelatedness”, and announced
that Croatia, Grenada, Panama, Thailand, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Turkey had
joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.
4. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that the following countries had also joined
in sponsoring the draft resolution: Angola, Bangladesh,
Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Cameroon, the Congo,
Eritrea, Guinea, Honduras, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan,
Mongolia, Nigeria and Senegal.
Agenda item 61: Implementation of the outcome
of the World Summit for Social Development
and of the twenty-fourth special session of the
General Assembly (continued)
Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.5/Rev.1: Implementation
of the outcome of the World Summit for Social
Development and of the twenty-fourth special session
of the General Assembly
5. The Chairman said that the revised draft
resolution contained no programme budget
implications and invited the Committee to take action
on it.
6. Ms. Bowen (Jamaica), speaking on behalf of the
sponsors, said that Austria, Croatia, Finland, France,
Norway, San Marino, Slovakia and Sweden had joined
in sponsoring the revised draft resolution. Announcing
a minor oral revision to the text, she said that
paragraphs 13 and 15 had been combined and the word
“and” added before “underlines” to make a new
paragraph 13. The subsequent paragraphs had been
renumbered accordingly. On behalf of the Group of 77
and China, she thanked all delegations for their
cooperation and constructive spirit when negotiating
the revised draft, which she hoped would be adopted
by consensus.

A/C.3/60/SR.33
7. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that the following countries had also joined
in sponsoring the draft resolution: Andorra, Armenia,
Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Greece,
Honduras, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liberia, Portugal, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and Ukraine.
8. Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.5/Rev.1, as orally
revised, was adopted.
9. Ms. García-Matos (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela), explaining her delegation’s position on the
draft resolution, said that, as far as her delegation was
concerned, the reference in the third preambular
paragraph to “the commitments made at the 2005
World Summit” did not refer in any way to the 2005
World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1) which, as it
had stated on previous occasions, her delegation
considered to be a mere working paper with no
mandate whatsoever for her country.
10. Ms. Shestack (United States of America),
explaining her delegation’s position on the draft
resolution and drawing attention to the reference to the
need to take concrete actions on corporate
responsibility and accountability, including for the
prevention or prosecution of corruption (para. 17), said
that, while her Government saw corruption as a
tremendous challenge to democracy, it wished to
emphasize that, where there was a need for setting
standards of corporate social responsibility or for law
enforcement, it was the responsibility of Governments
to enforce corruption laws. Initiatives to promote
corporate social responsibility should be voluntary. As
for paragraph 15, her Government wished to reiterate
that it did not favour financial mechanisms that would
involve taxes on air travel or other forms of global
taxation.
Agenda item 106: Crime prevention and criminal
justice (continued)
Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.8/Rev.1: Strengthening the
United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Programme, in particular its technical cooperation
capacity
11. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee) said
that, in the eighth preambular paragraph, the phrase
“resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005” should be
replaced by “resolution 60/___” with the understanding

that it referred to draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.11/Rev.1,
which had been adopted by the Committee on
21 October 2005 and would be numbered when
adopted by the General Assembly.
12. Turning to the programme budget implications of
the revised draft resolution and referring the
Committee to paragraphs 8, 9, 18 and 19 of the text, he
said that the Committee would recall that the General
Assembly had appropriated $10,040,200 under section
16, Crime prevention and criminal justice, and
$21,476,100 under section 17, International drug
control, or a total of $31,516,300 for the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) for
2004-2005. For 2006-2007, the Secretary-General
proposed a programme budget totalling $33,043,800
under section 16, International drug control, crime
prevention and criminal justice. Adoption of the draft
resolution would not therefore entail any additional
appropriation. He also drew the Committee’s attention
to section VI of General Assembly resolution 45/248 B
of 21 December 1990, which reaffirmed that the Fifth
Committee was the appropriate Main Committee of the
General Assembly entrusted with responsibilities for
administrative and budgetary matters and reaffirmed
also the role of the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions.
13. Mr. Cavallari (Italy), speaking on behalf of the
sponsors, said that Afghanistan, Armenia, Bolivia,
Canada, Cuba, Guinea, Iceland, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Liechtenstein, the Philippines and Viet Nam had joined
in sponsoring draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.8/Rev.1. On
the basis of suggestions made during informal
consultations, a number of changes had been made to
the text in response to, inter alia, the adoption of the
Bangkok Declaration at the Eleventh United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice,
the need to address technical assistance in a
comprehensive and balanced manner, the need to
provide UNODC with sufficient resources for the full
implementation of its mandates and the importance of
ratifying legal instruments. In keeping with tradition,
the revised draft resolution was a product of the whole
membership.
14. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that the following countries had also joined
in sponsoring the draft resolution: Algeria, Angola,
Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia,
Haiti, Indonesia, Mali, Mozambique, the Niger, the

A/C.3/60/SR.33
Republic of Moldova, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Uganda, the United States of America and
Uruguay.
15. Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.8/Rev.1, as orally
corrected, was adopted.
16. Ms. García-Matos (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela), explaining her delegation’s position on the
draft resolution, said that her Government attached
great importance to strengthening the United Nations
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, as
demonstrated by the fact that it had signed and ratified
the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime and its Protocols, had recently
promulgated a law against organized crime and was
actively combating all forms of organized crime,
particularly human trafficking and corruption. For that
reason, her delegation had always joined in the
consensus on the draft resolution. However, her
delegation wished to express its reservations
concerning the reference in the fourth preambular
paragraph to the High-level Plenary Meeting of the
General Assembly held in September 2005 and the
corresponding footnote, which referred the reader to
the 2005 World Summit Outcome. For reasons that she
had already outlined, her delegation was not therefore
able to sponsor the draft resolution.
17. The Chairman suggested that, in accordance
with General Assembly decision 55/488, the
Committee should take note of the report of the
Secretary-General on preventing and combating
corrupt practices and transfer of assets of illicit origin
and returning such assets to the countries of origin
(A/60/157) and the report of the Secretary-General on
the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice (A/60/172).
18. It was so decided.
Agenda item 107: International drug control
(continued)
Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.27: Providing support
to Afghanistan with a view to ensuring effective
implementation of its Counter-Narcotic
Implementation Plan
19. The Chairman said that the draft resolution
contained no programme budget implications and
invited the Committee to take action on it.

20. Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.27 was adopted.
Agenda item 64: Advancement of women (continued)
Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.13/Rev.1: United Nations
Development Fund for Women
21. The Chairman said that the revised draft
resolution contained no programme budget implications.
22. Mr. Hyassat (Jordan), speaking on behalf of the
sponsors, said that Angola, Argentina, Chile, the
Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Ethiopia, Japan, Nigeria, Rwanda, Switzerland
and the United Republic of Tanzania had joined in
sponsoring the draft resolution. The widespread
support for the revised draft, which was the result of
informal consultations, demonstrated the international
community’s recognition of the important role played
by the United Nations Development Fund for Women
(UNIFEM). He hoped that the draft resolution would
be adopted by consensus.
23. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that the following countries had also joined
in sponsoring the draft resolution: Andorra, Australia,
Barbados, Benin, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Eritrea, Estonia, Grenada,
Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia,
Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,
Mauritania, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Togo,
Turkey and Uruguay.
24. Draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.13/Rev.1 was adopted.
25. Ms. Shestack (United States of America) said
that her delegation was pleased to join the consensus
on the draft resolution with the following explanation
of position. In connection with the second and third
preambular paragraphs, which reaffirmed the Beijing
Platform for Action and welcomed the declaration
adopted at the forty-ninth session of the Commission
on the Status of Women, she reiterated that the United
States was firmly committed to the empowerment of
women and the promotion of their enjoyment of
universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and
had devoted substantial resources to that end. However,
while the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action
expressed important political goals that the United
States endorsed, they did not create international legal
rights or legally binding obligations on States under
international law. Moreover, there had been an

A/C.3/60/SR.33
international consensus at the forty-ninth session of the
Commission that the Beijing documents created no
new international rights, including a right to abortion.
Reaffirmation by the United States of the goals,
objectives and commitments of those documents did
not constitute a change in its position with respect to
treaties it had not ratified. The United States fully
supported the principle of voluntary choice regarding
maternal and child health and family planning. It had
stated clearly and on many occasions, consistent with
the International Conference on Population and
Development, that it did not recognize abortion as a
method of family planning or support abortion in its
reproductive health assistance. The United States
understood that there was an international consensus
that the terms “reproductive health services” and
“reproductive rights” did not include abortion or
constitute support, endorsement or promotion of
abortion or the use of abortifacients. The United States
supported the treatment of women who suffered
injuries or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortion,
including post-abortion care, and did not place such
treatment among abortion-related services.
26. Turning to the seventh preambular paragraph,
which noted that the number of States parties to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women was among the highest
for human rights conventions, she said that the United
States firmly maintained its belief in the sovereign
authority of States to make any and all decisions about
treaty ratifications.
27. Ms. García-Matos (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela) said that she would appreciate it if anyone
wishing to refer to her country would use its proper
name: the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Explaining her delegation’s position on the draft
resolution, she said that it reiterated its firm
commitment to support UNIFEM initiatives aimed at
providing assistance to activities that benefited women
directly, incorporating women’s issues into the main
activities of both Governments and international
organizations. However, it wished to express its
reservations concerning the fourth preambular
paragraph, not because of the commitment to promote
gender equality and empowerment of women, but
because of the explicit reference to the 2005 World
Summit Outcome (A/60/L.1), which her delegation
considered to be a mere working paper with no
mandate whatsoever for her country.

28. Mr. Murillo Carrasco (Bolivia) said that Bolivia
also wished to sponsor the draft resolution.
29. Mr. Begg (New Zealand) said that his delegation
wished to make a short statement concerning the use of
QuickPlace to notify delegations of upcoming action.
The previous evening, there had been four separate and
conflicting messages on QuickPlace, causing confusion
in his delegation as to the draft resolutions on which it
should be seeking instructions for today’s meeting.
Though the conflicting information had been relatively
minor in the current instance, his delegation was
concerned that the problem should become much more
serious once the Committee moved into the busier half
of the session. He therefore proposed that final
notification of draft resolutions for action the following
day should be issued no later than 5 p.m. and that
messages disseminated by Bureau members to their
regional groups and through QuickPlace should be
consistent. He would appreciate it if the matter could
be raised at the next Bureau meeting.
Agenda item 71: Human rights questions (continued)
(A/60/40, 44, 129, 336, 392 and 408)
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative
approaches for improving the effective
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms (continued) (A/60/134, 266, 272, 286,
299, 301 and Add.1, 305*, 321, 326, 333, 338 and
Corr.1, 339 and Corr.1, 340, 348, 350, 353, 357,
374, 384, 392, 399 and 431; A/C.3/60/3 and 5)
(c) Human rights situations and reports of special
rapporteurs and representatives (continued)
(A/60/221, 271, 306, 324, 349, 354, 356, 359, 367,
370, 395 and 422 and Corr.1; A/C.3/60/2)
(e) Report of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (continued)
(A/60/36 and 343)
30. Mrs. Enkhtsetseg (Mongolia) said that her
delegation agreed with the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights that the central
challenge currently was to translate human rights
obligations into reality by bridging the implementation
gaps at the national level. As a State party to over 30
international human rights treaties and conventions,
Mongolia was committed to the promotion and
protection of all human rights and had, since the

A/C.3/60/SR.33
adoption of its Constitution in 1992, been actively
involved in overhauling its legislation, including the
Criminal Code and Civil Code, to bring it in line with
international standards.
31. In August 2005, the National Human Rights
Commission of Mongolia, established in 2001 in
accordance with the Paris Principles, had hosted the
Tenth Annual Meeting of the Asia Pacific Forum of
National Human Rights Institutions. The participants
had agreed, inter alia, to set up a working group to
develop draft guidelines designed to strengthen the
application of the Paris Principles in the Asia-Pacific
region.
32. The National Human Rights Action Programme
had been adopted in 2003 with a view to improving the
capacity and accountability of the authorities;
enhancing the participation of civil society, the mass
media and the private sector; as well as encouraging
public motivation for strengthening human rights
protection and combating human rights violations.
33. Despite the political commitment to the
protection and promotion of human rights in Mongolia,
the country was hampered to a great extent by its
knowledge gap and capacity gap. It also had to cope
with emerging transborder issues, such as the spread of
HIV/AIDS, human trafficking and migration, which
required a collective response based on regional and
international cooperation. Her delegation therefore
welcomed the activities envisaged by the High
Commissioner to enhance country engagement and
develop effective partnerships to help ensure protection
and promotion of human rights at the national level.
34. The implementation of human rights was
contingent upon a sound monitoring system, and the
revised draft harmonized guidelines on reporting under
the international human rights treaties were an
important tool for improving the reporting obligations
of States parties. Her delegation was in favour of
further enhancing the assistance provided by the Office
of the High Commissioner to Member States in
meeting their reporting obligations as well as in
following up the recommendations of the relevant
committees.
35. Mr. Aydogdyev (Turkmenistan) said that
ensuring full respect for fundamental freedoms and
human rights was one of the main priorities of his
Government, which had adopted a number of
substantive measures to that end during the past year.

In October 2005, the People’s Council had adopted
legislation that improved the country’s electoral
system. Aware of the importance of protecting and
respecting the human rights of refugees, the
Government, by a presidential decree, had granted
citizenship to more than 16,000 refugees from
neighbouring countries who had been residing in
Turkmenistan for a number of years.
36. As a party to the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
Turkmenistan consistently pursued a policy of full and
equal rights of participation for women in the political,
social, economic and cultural life of the country. The
Women’s Union of Turkmenistan had devised a
national plan of action on the implementation of the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, designed
to strengthen the social status of women and develop
mechanisms of interaction between Government
structures and relevant international organizations. The
National Institute for Democracy and Human Rights
advised various governmental agencies on
Turkmenistan’s international obligations arising from
the various human rights conventions to which it was a
party and, where applicable, forwarded individual
complaints to the relevant authorities for action.
37. Earlier in the year, the National Parliament had
established a committee on human rights, which took
the lead in drafting legislation to enhance fundamental
freedoms and rights. Other efforts to improve the
human rights situation included a law prohibiting the
use of child labour and a legislative act to ensure the
religious rights of citizens. The Government had
engaged in dialogue with the Office of the High
Commissioner and worked with a team from that
Office on a technical assistance programme.
38. However, the steps taken by the Government of
Turkmenistan in the human rights area had not been
universally acknowledged and a number of Member
States had decided to initiate another draft resolution
on the human rights situation in his country. His
Government firmly believed that human rights could
not be imposed from outside and that country-specific
resolutions only undermined trust among potential
partners and politicized the United Nations human
rights machinery. Building a democratic society and
ensuring respect for human rights was a political
choice of the Government, which would welcome any
support and assistance in implementing those rights.
Only through dialogue, cooperation and engagement

A/C.3/60/SR.33
could the cause of human rights be advanced locally
and globally.
39. Mr. Anshor (Indonesia) said that his Government
was prepared to participate in the process leading to
the establishment of a more effective and less
politicized Human Rights Council. His delegation had
noted the plan of action of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights and shared the High
Commissioner’s view that current challenges to human
rights required a concerted response by the international
community as a whole.
40. At the national level, the House of
Representatives had adopted two laws to ratify the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, respectively, thereby providing an
additional legal framework for the promotion and
protection of human rights. All human rights were
universal, indivisible and interdependent. Equal
attention should therefore be given to civil and cultural
rights alongside economic, social and cultural rights, as
well as the right to development.
41. Poverty eradication in developing countries
should become the main focus of the United Nations.
Although developing countries were primarily
responsible for formulating their national strategic
development plans, developed countries had the
responsibility, as global partners, to ensure a
favourable international environment for the
advancement of human rights, security and
development in developing countries. Believing that
the right to development promoted social justice and
the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, his Government expected the right to
development to be a priority issue of the future Human
Rights Council. Promoting that right as an integral part
of the Council’s agenda would ensure that all
stakeholders enjoyed the right to development.
42. Mr. Alday (Mexico) said that his country had
been conducting an active human rights policy and had
recently ratified the Optional Protocol to the
Convention against Torture and the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court. As stated in the
World Summit Outcome, the protection of human
rights constituted a basic value for all Member States.
Consequently, every attempt should be made to ensure
that human rights was given high priority in the work
of the United Nations. Since 2000, Mexico had been

cooperating with the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights and, as a result, had introduced a
national human rights programme in December 2004.
43. Although recent events had confirmed that
terrorism was a serious problem, the fact that States
had an obligation to protect the human rights of their
populations did not justify the suspension or violation
of human rights of persons under their jurisdiction.
Respect for human rights, far from being an obstacle,
was an effective tool to combat terrorism. His
delegation welcomed the decision of the Commission
on Human Rights to appoint a Special Rapporteur
whose mandate would be to make concrete
recommendations on the promotion and protection of
human rights and the adoption of measures to counter
terrorism, including, at the request of States, technical
assistance on such matters.
44. As to vulnerable groups, Mexico had made
proposals regarding standards for the protection of
migrants and persons with disabilities. His delegation
planned to submit two draft resolutions on the subject
at the current session of the General Assembly. It was
altogether unacceptable that the human rights situation
of migrants should deteriorate as a result of
discrimination and exclusion. The high-level dialogue
on international migration and development would
provide an opportunity for the international community
to examine that matter thoroughly in all its aspects.
45. Mr. Saeed (Sudan) stressed the need to respect
cultural and religious diversity in dealing with human
rights issues. Multilateral diplomacy should guide any
human rights reform measures, including the mandate
of the Human Rights Council, which should be
objective and accountable. It was vital to respect the
sovereignty of States and pay heed to violations of
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil
and political rights. The international community
should adopt measures to deal with human rights
violations. The right to development, food and dignity
were priorities for developing countries and required
adequate mechanisms to promote them, including
technical cooperation. However, technical cooperation
should be free of any political bias and should refrain
from imposing any particular system on the receiving
countries.
46. The statement by the United States representative
on the situation in the Sudan was in total contradiction
to the observations made by the Special Rapporteur on

A/C.3/60/SR.33
the situation of human rights in the Sudan, who had
spoken freely to the authorities and visited prisons in
the country. The statement reflected the position of the
United States, not that of the international community.
The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur
had concluded that the Government of the Sudan had
not pursued a policy of genocide and the United States
had not objected at that time. The Government had
acknowledged that there were human rights problems
as a consequence of war but had showed a real political
will to find a political solution and to help the
displaced persons.
47. The United States was in no position to make any
pronouncements on human rights violations. It should
invite a commission of inquiry to visit Guantanamo
Bay so that the international community could see what
was happening and take adequate measures. The
United States should also be held accountable for the
desecration of sacred symbols in the Abu Ghraib prison
in Iraq.
48. Canada was another country that was not
qualified to talk about human rights violations and
should put its own affairs in order before setting itself
up as a judge on such matters.
49. Mr. Kovalevsky (Belarus) said that the
promotion and protection of human rights had become
one of the most important components of United
Nations reform. Although such rights had become more
prominent in the work of the Organization, the
mechanism for defending them had remained
unchanged. Belarus had long been in favour of
improvements and had long warned that the
Commission on Human Rights could not operate
effectively or resolve topical problems, because that
body was defeating the aims of its original mandate
and replacing dialogue and cooperation with political
considerations, a selective approach and double
standards. It had fallen into a routine of adopting
resolutions condemning certain countries whose human
rights situations were no worse than those of others,
while allowing other countries to commit serious
violations without criticism.
50. Belarus was against country-specific resolutions,
which destroyed the basis of international cooperation
on human rights, encouraging mistrust and
confrontation rather than dialogue and cooperation.
Being selective and politically motivated by definition,
such resolutions prevented human rights issues from

being examined honestly and fairly, ignored the fact
that such rights were interlinked and interdependent,
and widened the division between political and civil
rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and
cultural rights and the right to development, on the
other hand. Belarus consequently supported the view
which the High Commissioner for Human Rights had
expressed in her report (A/60/36) that cooperation and
partnership must be given a greater role.
51. The increase in racial intolerance, xenophobia,
human trafficking and action by extremist and terrorist
groups, and the worsening situation of refugees and
migrants, among other problems, raised human rights
concerns in many countries, including those which
were supposed to be developed democracies. A less
individual, more integral view of human rights would
encourage mutual respect and trust between countries.
Belarus did not accept the criticism which some
countries had levelled at it. The 2004 election and
referendum had confirmed public support for the
President’s course of action. The presence of
independent international observers was proof of the
transparency of the electoral process.
52. Human rights reform in the Organization had
reached a watershed and must be methodical, focusing
on results rather than speed. Belarus was in favour of
an open-ended General Assembly working group on
the establishment of a Human Rights Council to take
account of a variety of views, particularly those of
small and developing States. Unless decisions were
taken by consensus, Member States would not support
or trust the new body, and negotiations would be
protracted.
53. Belarus felt very strongly that trafficking in
human beings destroyed the dignity of hundreds of
thousands and had briefed the Member States on its
initiative for a global partnership against slavery and
human trafficking in the twenty-first century, under the
auspices of the United Nations.
54. Mr. Gaspar Martins (Angola) said that the
special procedures of the Organization’s human rights
machinery were important to assessing human rights
objectively and ensuring that they were protected
nationally and internationally. The 2005 World Summit
had confirmed the need to upgrade the Commission on
Human Rights: while international human rights
conventions had achieved much, challenges remained.
As the Commission on Human Rights Special

A/C.3/60/SR.33
Rapporteur on the right to food had indicated in his
presentation to the Committee, the human rights
enshrined in the international conventions must be
understood within a broader framework in which
peace, development and human rights were mutually
reinforcing. Overemphasizing some human rights at the
expense of others had led to selectivity and double
standards.
55. Aware that States themselves had primary
responsibility for promoting and protecting human
rights, Angola had embarked on reform to ensure that
the content and implementation of its legislation was in
line with the international human rights standards to
which it was committed and had complied with its
reporting obligations to the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the
Committee on the Rights of the Child. Its Constitution
gave international human rights conventions the force
of domestic law. Believing that the achievement of the
Millennium Development Goals was a foundation for
the full enjoyment of all human rights, Angola had
adopted a national poverty-reduction strategy.
56. The Commission on Human Rights had been
criticized, sometimes rightly, for being selective,
politicized and ineffective, and for duplicating some of
the work of the Third Committee and treaty bodies.
The 2005 World Summit had provided an opportunity,
and clear guidance, for action. However, in order to
succeed, the Human Rights Council and the special
procedure mandate-holders must promote mutual
understanding through dialogue and cooperation. The
resources of the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights must be increased, and the change from
standard-setting to implementation advocated by the
High Commissioner herself deserved support.
57. Ms. García-Matos (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela) said that full guarantees of human rights
were the backbone of State policy and had been
enshrined in the Venezuelan constitution. Her country
had ratified international human rights conventions and
had fulfilled its reporting obligations under those
conventions. It had carried out comprehensive judicial
reform, reinforced basic public services and promoted
employment to eliminate poverty, hunger and social
exclusion.
58. Her Government believed that States should have
been given the opportunity to comment on the reports
of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its
causes and consequences before their publication.
While the Special Rapporteurs fulfilled an important
role, they must be selected according to objective and
reliable criteria and must seek dialogue and
cooperation with States rather than individual and
selective criticism and penalties.
59. Echoing the report of the Secretary-General on
protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms
while countering terrorism (A/60/374), condemning all
terrorist acts and methods and expressing solidarity
with the victims of terrorism, she wished to draw
attention to the case of Luís Clemente Posada Carriles,
a terrorist, accused hijacker and torturer who had
escaped Venezuelan justice and whom the United
States of America was refusing to extradite. Her
Government believed that terrorism was committed not
only by those who engaged in terrorist acts, but also by
those who harboured terrorists. It also wished to
reiterate that a clear distinction must be drawn between
terrorist acts and the struggle of peoples to resist
foreign occupation, establish self-determination and
maintain or restore sovereignty.
60. Mr. Belinga Eboutou (Cameroon) said that the
concept of human rights expressed at the 2005 World
Summit must be translated into action. The Third
Committee was debating how to forge a unanimous
view of human rights, as well as a structure to promote
those rights. The debate was centred on the individual
as the root and focus of peace and as the beneficiary of
development. The very recent General Assembly
resolution on holocaust remembrance was a reminder
that the international community had begun to codify
human rights in the wake of the Second World War in
order to prevent a repeat of that war’s barbaric attacks
on human beings and human dignity.
61. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had
been followed by a number of international covenants
and conventions. Despite the progress made, serious
human rights violations were still being committed and
there was still a tendency to promote a single right or
category of rights to the detriment of others and to
exploit human rights for other ends. A gap had opened
up between the letter and spirit of the human rights
declarations and the reality of everyday life.
62. The make-up of modern society justified the
focus, at the 2005 Summit, on issues such as the right

A/C.3/60/SR.33
to life and the right to development. Human rights
could not be asserted when people went hungry, when
women lost their lives in childbirth, when many
suffered the effects of lack of drinking water and
illiteracy and when successive generations would
suffer the same fate unless action was taken. All human
rights were universal, indivisible, interrelated,
interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
63. His delegation supported the proposal for a
Human Rights Council, which must develop an allencompassing
view of human rights, respecting the
diversity of cultures and civilizations. It called for the
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights to be given more resources, at both
central and local level, and supported the appeal of the
Secretary-General, in his report on the Subregional
Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central
Africa (A/60/353), for additional funds for that Centre,
whose assistance was much in demand.
64. His Government was confident that the United
Nations, its Member States, NGOs and civil society
could work together to recast cooperation on human
rights. To that end, the world must have democratic
governments committed to the rule of law and to
guaranteeing respect for human rights, and continued
efforts to eradicate poverty, which was the most serious
threat to human dignity and to peace.
Statements made in exercise of the right of reply
65. Mr. La Yifan (China) said that he could deal with
the remarks of the United States of America and of
Australia together, since the two countries had a
similar history of genocide, land seizures from
indigenous populations, and discrimination against
minorities and asylum-seekers. Both belittled basic
rights, and often they cast the only two votes against
relevant resolutions. New resemblances had been
emerging, like the rolling back of civil liberties and the
rise in the power of the police. Now the United States
was even attempting to legalize the use of torture.
China valued its constructive relationship with both
countries, and felt it could afford to be candid. It
looked forward to the day when the two countries
would address their own, and each other’s, human
rights problems openly in the Committee.
66. Mr. Aksen (Turkey) said that the statement made
by the representative of Greece was made up of false
accusations and distortions. The intervention by

Turkish troops in 1974 had been prompted by
massacres of Turkish Cypriots. United Nations
peacekeeping troops had been in Cyprus since early
1964 because at the end of 1963 Greek Cypriots had
dislodged the partnership Government and taken over
the country, forcing the Turkish Cypriots to live in
enclaves, where they were still being subjected to
many human rights violations. In 1974 Turkey had
intervened as a “guarantor Power”, under the 1960
Agreements, to prevent annexation of Cyprus by
Greece.
67. In 2004, Turkish Cypriots had voted
overwhelmingly for the Annan unification plan, while
the majority of Greek Cypriots had voted against it and
against partnership with the Turkish Cypriots. Since
then, the situation in the island had changed for the
Greek Cypriots, with Greek Cyprus’s accession to the
European Union, but Turkish Cypriots remained as
isolated as ever, in spite of international efforts to help
them and an appeal by the Secretary-General for
cooperation with a view to eliminating unnecessary
barriers that had the effect of isolating the Turkish
Cypriots and impeding their development (S/2004/437,
para. 93). On 30 May 2005 the Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey had
circulated proposals for the lifting of all restrictions on
the island, as reflected in document A/59/820. He
expected the international community to support the
people of Turkish Cyprus.
68. Mrs. Thandar (Myanmar), responding to
statements by the representatives of Australia, the
United States of America, and Canada, said that
referring to her country by a name other than its
official one showed a regrettable lack of respect and
sensitivity. Myanmar implemented strictly all the many
United Nations instruments to which it was a party, and
was moving towards democracy with a National
Convention where 633 of the 1,088 delegates were
from national minorities and over 100 represented the
many armed groups in the country. Given the
difficulties of persuading armed groups to participate
in negotiations, Myanmar rejected unwarranted
criticism of the degree to which its National
Convention was inclusive. Far from being a threat to
the region, it was a factor for peace and stability and
had been cited as a model society for religious
tolerance by Mrs. Ogata. As for Canada’s remarks
concerning forced labour, Myanmar continued to
cooperate with the International Labour Organization

A/C.3/60/SR.33
to eradicate forced labour and was striving to uphold
the basic human rights of all its citizens.
69. Ms. Gardashova (Azerbaijan), responding to the
statement by Armenia and the letter circulated in
document A/C.3/60/5, stated that Armenia’s efforts to
camouflage its annexation of Azerbaijan’s territory
under the banner of “self-determination” were doomed
to failure. The self-styled separatist regime in Nagorny
Karabakh had seceded unilaterally from Azerbaijan but
was recognized by no other country, and the region
would always be an integral part of Azerbaijan. The
figures in the Secretary-General’s report in document
A/60/305 no longer reflected the true situation, because
under a new law Azerbaijan could give citizenship to
250,000 Azerbaijani refugees expelled from Armenia.
Her Government dismissed Armenia’s accusations of a
blockade against Nagorny Karabakh, since a State
could not blockade its own territory; on the contrary, it
was Armenia which was blockading Azerbaijan, with
Nakhichevan completely cut off from the rest of
Azerbaijan except by air, to the detriment of the 50,000
jobless people there, including 1,400 families forced
out of Nagorny Karabakh. Apart from the road link via
Iran, for whose cooperation her country was very
grateful, the only way out of the blockade was the
State-subsidized air shuttle. Armenia had mentioned in
its letter the idea of re-opening communications as a
confidence-building measure, without preconditions
and without benefits to Armenia; that suggestion
required further elaboration. The Azerbaijani proposal
to re-open the former transport corridors, made at the
current session by the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
should not be overlooked. It would be constructive of
Armenia to withdraw its forces from the four areas
along the railroad linking Nakhichevan to the rest of
Azerbaijan. Armenia’s refusal of Azerbaijani rescue
teams to help after its earthquake was not a positive
sign, since democratization and stability in the
southern Caucasus would only be possible once all the
States in the region were willing to cooperate.
70. Ms. Halabi (Syrian Arab Republic) condemned
the practice of politicizing the human rights question
by singling out a State or group of States. That practice
was especially unfair in the case of her country, which
had acceded to more United Nations conventions than
some of the States pointing the finger of accusation. It
was no longer tenable for the United States of America
to claim to be defending human rights while violating
them itself in other parts of the world.

71. Responding to the representative of Canada, she
pointed out that the Syrian Arab Republic upheld its
international obligations, especially under those
Conventions to which it had acceded, and suggested
that the meetings should be used to formulate criteria
to which all were committed rather than to raise
controversies over reports that lacked objectivity.
72. Mr. Schlosser (Israel) expressed disappointment
at the similarity of the statement by Palestine to those
of previous sessions, in spite of the dramatic changes
which had taken place in the country. The Palestinian
Authority had to assume responsibility for
implementing its part of the road map, rather than
speak as though there were no terrorism and human
rights violations on the Palestinian side. The
commitment to peace made by Prime Minister Sharon
and Chairman Mahmoud Abbas at the Sharm el-Sheikh
meeting had been followed by Mr. Sharon’s courageous
withdrawal of all troops and civilians from Gaza and
part of the West Bank. It was now the task of the
Palestinian Authority to disarm the Palestinian
terrorists who had perpetrated more than 26,000
attacks against Israeli targets in the past five years.
Israel sought peace, and the Gaza disengagement was a
window of opportunity for both peoples. If the
Palestinians would only reject violence and terror and
discontinue unhelpful rhetoric, they would establish the
climate necessary for moving forward towards
cooperation and peace.
73. Mr. Pak Tok Hun (Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea), replying to statements by the representatives
of the United States of America and Australia,
regretted the levelling of stereotyped human rights
allegations against selected countries, which refused to
submit, and later intervening in their internal affairs in
order to establish a regime more to the accusers’ liking.
The United States was clearly aiming at “system
change” and the collapse of the country’s Government,
with its “North Korea Human Rights Act” and the
appointment of a special envoy for human rights in
North Korea. The United States was quick to accuse
others, but silent on its own appalling human rights
record, which included such acts as occupying an
independent State and massacring its civilians. In the
United States only the rich had privileges. Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo were merely the tip of an iceberg, and
the United States should repent its grave violations of
human rights. Australia, too, should refrain from

A/C.3/60/SR.33
applying double standards and making provocative,
fault-finding statements.
74. Mr. Vohidov (Uzbekistan), said that various of
the comments made by the United Kingdom (on behalf
of the European Union), the United States of America
and Canada were based on allegations and rumours, in
an attempt to manipulate human rights standards for
their own ends. A draft resolution would be submitted
by the European Union concerning the events in
Andijan, and it was necessary to clarify the
circumstances and state what exactly had happened. In
May 2005, several armed groups had attacked a
military unit, releasing and arming 500 prisoners from
the city jail; officials of the city administration had
been attacked and taken hostage; and the insurgents
had tried to seize Andijan with the political motivation
of overthrowing Uzbekistan’s constitutional Government.
The investigation, which had been carried out by the
competent authorities, had been monitored by the
country’s parliament and by an international group
made up of foreign diplomats working in the country,
which unfortunately the United States and the
European countries had refused to join, stating a
preference for an international investigation, which
would clearly be a violation of the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign
State. Uzbekistan would view calls for such an
investigation as unjustified pressure on the country,
which would push Central Asia into turmoil and allow
terrorists and extremists to exploit the situation. Any
attempt by the European Union and the United States
of America to inflate the issue would discriminate
against Uzbekistan’s efforts to build a free and
democratic society.
The meeting rose at 5.38 p.m.